British Nationality: Indian Citizenship Law

Lord Avebury: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Further to the Written Answer by the Baroness Scotland of Asthal on 25 October (WA 169), whether they will provide a schedule of their meetings or discussions which occurred in New Delhi between 1 January 1997 and 1 April 1998 including (a) the date of the meeting or discussion and whether it was a face-to-face meeting or a telephone discussion; (b) the approximate length of the meeting or discussion; and (c) the participants by department, function or position.

Lord Triesman: We have a record of formal contact being made with the Indian authorities in New Delhi on the question of Indian citizenship law on the following occasions between January 1997 and April 1998:
	11 February 1997: British High Commissioner to New Delhi met with the acting Indian Foreign Secretary at the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA).
	6 March 1997: Officials from the British High Commission spoke to Head of Consular, Passport and Visa division at the MEA.
	11 June 1997: Derek Fatchett (Foreign Office Minister) met with Minister of State, MEA, Kamla Sinha.
	25 September 1997: Baroness Symons called on Kamla Sinha, Minister of State, MEA.
	27 November 1997: First Secretary (Immigration and Consular, the British High Commision in Delhi) and Assistant Director, Immigration and Nationality Directorate, Home Office met with Director, MEA and Director, Ministry of Home Affairs.
	27 February 1998: Consular Officials from the British High Commission spoke to Head of Consular and Passport Section of MEA.
	It is not our practice to record the length of such discussions.

Cabinet Office: Information Security

Lord Harris of Haringey: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Which Minister has responsibility for information security in the Cabinet Office.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My honourable friend the Parliamentary Secretary has responsibility for information security within the Cabinet Office.

Department for Work and Pensions: Telephone Numbers

Lord Tyler: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether the Department for Work and Pensions, and the executive agencies for which it is responsible, now follow the guidance of the Central Office of Information and OFCOM in relation to the use of 0870 and 0845 telephone numbers for public enquiries.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: DWP and its executive agencies consider a wide range of factors in setting up customer helplines. The COI's guidance is available via the DWP's intranet site and is one of the factors taken into account. Currently, DWP does not use 0870 numbers. The majority of helplines use 0845 numbers and some use 0800 numbers.

Disabled People: Debt

Lord Morris of Manchester: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What consideration they have given to the Leonard Cheshire report entitled In the balance: disabled people's experiences of debt; and whether they will be taking any action on its conclusion and recommendations.

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: The Government welcome this contribution to the debate on the experience of debt and on responsible lending. A number of the recommendations have already been considered by the Government in the course of their review of the Consumer Credit Act, or are being taken forward by industry. We will take the findings of the report into account in future work on responsible lending.

Essex: Infrastructure

Lord Hanningfield: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	How many additional (a) general practitioners; (b) hospitals; and (c) health centres will be required if an additional 131,000 houses are built in Essex; and
	How many additional (a) teachers; (b) primary schools; (c) secondary schools; and (d) further education institutions will be required if an additional 131,000 houses are built in Essex; and
	How many additional (a) police officers; (b) police stations; and (c) court facilities will be required if an additional 131,000 houses are built in Essex; and
	How many additional (a) social workers, and (b) other care workers will be required if an additional 131,000 houses are built in Essex; and
	How many additional (a) fire officers, and (b) fire stations will be required if an additional 131,000 houses are built in Essex; and
	What improvements to transport infrastructure will be required before an additional 131,000 houses can be built in Essex.

Baroness Andrews: The Government's approach is to ensure that infrastructure is provided in step with growth, as plans for individual growth locations are developed. There are three elements to this: first, to ensure that main public expenditure programmes, such as health and education, are sufficiently flexible and responsive to the needs of growing communities; secondly, to secure an appropriate contribution from developers and private investors, and thirdly, to provide additional support through growth areas funds including the Community Infrastructure Fund.
	Essex and the rest of the east of England have already benefited from a significant increase in identifiable public expenditure, receiving £28.l billion in 2003–04—a 26 per cent. real terms increase on 1999–2000. In particular between 1999–2000 and 2003–04:
	transport spending in the region rose from £717 million to £1,038 million;
	health spending in the region rose from £4,011 million to £6,001 million;
	education and training spending in the region rose from £3,327 to £4,889 million; and
	public order and safety spending in the region rose from £896 million to £1,413 million.
	The East of England Regional Assembly has submitted its draft regional spatial strategy for the east of England to Government. Following extensive public consultation, that draft strategy is now subject to an independent examination in public, which began on 1 November and runs to early March 2006.
	It is for the examination in public, after considering all the evidence and representations before it, to make recommendations to Government on the appropriate long-term strategy for the scale and location of development in the east of England.
	Once Government have received the recommendations of the examination in public, and consulted on any changes it proposes, the final strategy will be issued. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is already engaged in discussions with partners on infrastructure and growth issues in the east of England and we will develop plans further in the light of the final strategy. Public service providers will then have the long-term certainty they need in which to plan future levels of service provision. Detailed development decisions need to be made at the local level as part of the preparation of local development documents.

HM Treasury: Information Security

Lord Harris of Haringey: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Which Minister has responsibility for information security in HM Treasury.

Lord McKenzie of Luton: The Financial Secretary is the Treasury Minister with responsibility for information security in the Treasury.

Iran: Seizure of Royal Navy Vessels

Lord Corbett of Castle Vale: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What progress has been made in securing the return of United Kingdom naval vessels seized by Iran in international waters.

Lord Triesman: We continue to press for the return of the Royal Navy boats and equipment seized by Iranian forces in June 2004. Their return is the subject of ongoing discussions between the Government and the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Roads Expenditure: Classification

Baroness Noakes: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Why they omitted some, but not all, of the names of officials involved in examining the classification of roads expenditure from the documents released by HM Treasury under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 on 19 October.

Lord McKenzie of Luton: We provided the names of the senior civil servants involved in examining the classification of roads expenditure on the basis that we would normally expect the names of staff at this level to be in the public domain. We decided it would not be in the public interest for the names of officials below this level to be made public.

Sudan: African Union Mission

Lord Avebury: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they will discuss with the African Union an amendment to the mandate of the African Union Mission in Sudan (AMIS), to require AMIS actively to protect civilians from armed groups, particularly in the camps and their vicinity.

Lord Triesman: The advice of the international military assessment team on the African Union Mission in Sudan (AMIS) during a visit in March 2005 was that the mandate was adequate, but that more troops were needed to deliver it effectively. AMIS has now deployed around 5,500 military and civilian personnel, and 1,000 civilian police, as part its current expansion to more than 7,700 personnel.
	The UK and international partners have urged the AU to carry a further assessment mission to examine the effectiveness of the expanded AMIS and present recommendations for the future, including on the requirements of the mandate. We expect that this mission will take place in the coming weeks.

Sudan: African Union Mission

Lord Avebury: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What information they have received about the reasons for the delay in reaching the authorised level of 7,731 soldiers and police for the African Union Mission in Sudan; and whether a force of this size is large enough to prevent further harm to civilians.

Lord Triesman: The African Union (AU) has now deployed around 5,500 military and civilian personnel, and 1,000 civilian police, as part of the AU Mission in Sudan's (AMIS) current expansion to more than 7,700 personnel. It is likely that South Africa will now be unable to provide a military battalion, and it has proven difficult to generate appropriately qualified civilian police. There was a three-week delay in deployment in September for infrastructure improvements to be made, and due to Sudan-wide fuel shortages.
	We expect there to be a further mission to assess AMIS in the near future. This mission should examine the effectiveness of the expanded AMIS and present recommendations for the future, including whether any further expansion is required.

UN Convention on the Rights of the Child

Lord Roberts of Llandudno: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child has been ratified, taking into account remarks on this matter made by the Baroness Crawley on 19 October (Official Report, cols. 746–47).

Baroness Crawley: The United Kingdom ratified the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child on 16 December 1991. It came into force in the UK on 15 January 1992.
	This Answer covers the UK's two reservations on immigration and the separation of young offenders as well as under-eighteens serving in the Armed Forces, which were the subject of discussion on 19 October.
	With regard to immigration, the Government have carefully reviewed the reservation in light of recent requests that it should be withdrawn. We believe that it is necessary to retain this reservation which makes it clear that nothing in the convention is to be interpreted as affecting the operation of UK immigration and nationality legislation. The UK has entered other, similar reservations in respect of other human rights instruments.
	However, no child will be denied their human rights as guaranteed by the Human Rights Act when in the UK. We have also worked hard on proposing new measures to address some specific and practical issues relating to children. For example, a White Paper in 2002 proposed that specially trained immigration staff will be able to interview children about their asylum claims in a wider set of circumstances than at present. This will give officials a greater understanding of children's background and circumstances and help them better determine appropriate levels of care.
	In addition, as I explained in the House of Lords on 19 October, the level of support for children here as part of an asylum seeking family is equivalent to that provided for children in families on income support. The full support package includes fully furnished accommodation, associated utility bills and council tax is paid for centrally. The total support package is roughly equivalent to income support levels.
	The dispersal of unaccompanied asylum seeking children is not automatic. The Government will not generally seek to disperse those who have been in care and for whom a decision on their asylum claim has not been made. The cases of other unaccompanied young asylum seekers are judged on merit—they may not, for example, be dispersed if they are already in full-time education or if they have younger siblings in care.
	With regard to detaining under-eighteens in the same accommodation with adults, I should like to stress that we are doing all that we can to be in a position to be able to withdraw the reservation about custody and accommodation, if following review, we decide that this is desirable. We have made good progress in this field. We are building four new separate facilities for 17 year-old girls; one opened in December 2004 and a second in September 2005. The other two are due to open shortly.
	In terms of under-eighteens serving in the Armed Forces, we have made excellent progress since ratification of the UNCRC. The UK ratified the optional protocol (OP) to the UNCRC on the involvement of children in armed conflict on 24 June 2003, subject to a declaration. The declaration states that the UK will take all feasible measures to ensure that members of its Armed Forces who are under 18 do not take a direct part in hostilities. However, the UK understands that the OP does not exclude the deployment of under-eighteens where there is a genuine military need to deploy a unit or ship to an area where hostilities are taking place or the urgency and nature of the situation merits their involvement.
	Work has focused on reviewing the Armed Forces' policies and practice for the recruitment, employment and deployment of under-eighteens to ensure that they accord with the requirements of the OP. In addition, all possible steps are taken to ensure that no serviceman or servicewoman under 18 is deployed on operations unless it is purely for humanitarian reasons. No applicant under 18 years of age may join the Armed Forces unless the application is accompanied by the formal written consent of his/her parent or guardian.
	Commanding Officers take their responsibilities towards all their people extremely seriously. They are well aware of the particular welfare needs of younger recruits and trainees, even if they are not formally in loco parentis. The Ministry of Defence (MoD) recognises the vital role parents play in support of their children both before and after they have joined the Armed Forces. The MoD makes continual efforts to engage with parents and encourage trainees to keep in touch with home.